This is another case where if the public were to just read the title of the article they would not get the whole picture or what was said or done. Remember, the results and the conclusions were based on the data collected (including gaps). The key words in this article are “tentatively” and “caveats”. The review conducted by the PSF has
tentatively concluded that run-of-the-river projects have no impact to salmon species where these projects are located;
however, the report mentions a series of
caveats that go along with the findings. I don’t see anything shady by these results or conclusions. Although I have not read the report (and likely none of the members on this board have either) it appears that the report is attempting to be objective of what they found. As dnibbles pointed out, if the PSF is not independent enough then who is? If some people have trouble trusting the PSF then they will be even more unhappy to know that non-governmental organizations like the PSF will likely become more and more involved in fisheries projects as budgets from governments slowly dwindle. Collaboration with organizations like the PSF or even First Nations and industry is likely going to be the norm for doing business now so get used to it.
The study's authors were only able to judge impacts based on industry-supplied monitoring data from 26 sites. For the remaining 18 generating plants, monitoring records simply do not exist.
I can see how this can be interpreted as “Oh…someone is trying to hide something”; however, there could be various reasons why data collection was not adequate back then and not be something calculated and devious. For instance, the technology used by environmental monitoring used 20 or 30 years ago is not the same as it is now. Regulations/standards in place now were likely not the same 20 or 30 years ago. Training of individuals doing environmental monitoring is not the same as it was 20 or 30 years ago. I believe the thing to take home from this is that these ROR companies need to ensure proper environmental oversight (as indicated by the PSF) as well as ensure that monitoring records exist for all facilities. It will likely never prevent future criticism, but having a robust data series would be much better for public confidence and independent analysis than a data series with many gaps leading to faulty conclusions and an even more distrustful public.
Author
Topic: Run Of River Report By Pacific Salmon Foundation (Read 4359 times)